4.7 Article

A Combined Theoretical and Experimental Study of the Polymer Matrix-Mediated Stress Transfer in a Cellulose Nanocomposite

期刊

MACROMOLECULES
卷 54, 期 7, 页码 3507-3516

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.0c02305

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research [RMA15-0052]
  2. Swedish Research Council Formas [FR-2018/0010]
  3. Treesearch
  4. Chalmers University of Technology Foundation
  5. Swedish Research Council [2018-06487 RFI NanoSPAM]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study shows that direct cellulose/cellulose interactions are not necessary for reinforcement in cellulose nanocrystal composites. Instead, strong cellulose/polymer interactions, such as ionic interactions and hydrogen bonding, play a crucial role in stress transfer and reinforcement. Orienting cellulose nanocrystals through melt spinning can reduce cellulose/cellulose interactions, leading to an efficient reinforcing effect in the composite.
We study composites of cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) in an ionomer matrix of poly(ethylene-stat-sodium acrylate) and find that direct cellulose/cellulose interactions in the composite are not a requirement for achieving reinforcement. While isotropic composites only show a slightly enhanced stiffness compared to the neat ionomer, a more substantial increase in Young's modulus by a factor of up to 5 is achieved by uniaxial alignment of the composites through melt spinning. The orientation of CNC in melt-spun composites reduces the probability of cellulose/cellulose interactions, which suggests that cellulose/polymer interactions must be present that lead to the observed reinforcement. Molecular dynamics simulations confirm strong cellulose/polymer interactions in the form of ionic interactions as well as hydrogen bonding. These cellulose/polymer interactions facilitate efficient stress transfer, leading to the high reinforcing effect of CNC, while cellulose/cellulose interactions play a minor role in the mechanical response of the composite.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据